Cocktails and Condos at Infill Summit

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here.

There are still some parts of California where an “infill summit” would be on par with a meeting of the Communist Party or the Puppy-Hater Society. Downtown Los Angeles is not one of those places, and, thanks in part to a decade of housing legislation, now is a pretty good time to promote missing middle, adaptive reuse, ground-up high-density, and all sorts of redevelopment designed to enable more Californians to occupy less of California. 

The recent California Infill Summit, sponsored by the Council of Infill Builders, entailed elements of celebration, anxiety, and optimism: celebration for legislative victories and increasing public support; anxiety for the lethargic pace of development today; and optimism for the new version of urban California that could emerge if at least a few stars align. Which stars? We’ll get to that. 

Here, in no particular order, are some of the summit’s highlights: 

Party Time: The official drink of the summit was a whisky-forward concoction called the “Builder’s Remedy” -- appropriate because the cocktail hour was sponsored by law firm Rand Paster Nelson, which has developed a robust practice of informing cities when they may have violated the Housing Accountability Act. Conference organizer Mott Smith described the drink as “a little like a Manhattan.” 

No place in California is going to resemble Gotham any time soon. But, high rise projects are being foisted upon Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and other reluctant jurisdictions (that nonetheless did not manage to produce certified housing elements in time)--all of which house plenty of existing residents who probably love visiting New York City. 

Beyond the implicit jab at those tardy jurisdictions, the more important point is that infill builders are capable of levity. Density equals fun: restaurants, bars, busy sidewalks, civic events, thriving businesses, and all sorts of people dancing the proverbial sidewalk ballet.  That’s more than you can say for the slow-growth scolds at homeowners associations and certain statewide advocacy groups that fulminate about the slightest attempt to violate the sanctity of single-family neighborhoods. Many of them have been at it for a half-century or more. Maybe it’s time to lighten up? 

Power to the People: I don’t know how developers in other jurisdictions feel, but, in Los Angeles, developers’ Public Enemy No. 1 is the Department of Water and Power, the storied, clunky, and often overpriced city-owned utility. Developers frequently report that, even after the last faucet has been installed and lightbulb screwed in, DWP takes its sweet time getting the power connected. They also impose onerous regulations, such as requiring unsightly transformers to be placed in accessible locations, taking up precious real estate, to enable crews to make repairs every few decades. 

Granted, DWP isn’t in the development business. But, you get the sense that the agency has zero civic pride and zero sense of urgency. 

That might be changing. The most astonishing presentation came from David Hanson. Merely showing up was brave enough. Folksy and self-effacing -- in a way that you enjoy but don’t necessarily trust -- with a ringmaster mustache and a Louisiana twang, Hanson gave a rousing promise that DWP was going to change its ways and no longer be the enemy of development. If he makes good on it, Los Angeles’s developers will nominate him for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize. 

Mayoral Race: The Los Angeles mayoral race is down to two candidates, with the third left to his psychic crystals, grievances, and hotel bills. Both were invited to the summit. One showed up. That candidate spoke enthusiastically about development housing and the general YIMBY agenda. That candidate is, according to at least one poll, up five points on her opponent. Coincidence….? (This candidate’s major sticking point with the real estate crowd is her support for aggressive renter protections.)

The candidate may find inspiration in a sitting mayor, San Diego’s Todd Gloria, who received an award. Despite its traditional conservatism, San Diego is arguably the most pro-housing big city in the state, with new policies and upbeat rhetoric contributing to some 31,000 permits issued during his tenure. In this case, it’s the free-market, pro-business form of conservatism that seems to be winning over the “let’s go back to the 1950s” version. 

Missing in (In)action: The Infill Summit was in Los Angeles, but it was not of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, the largest city in its region. Los Angeles, considered, in more than one era, the most ambitious, dynamic city in the world. Los Angeles, the archetypal city of the 20th century. It barely registered. Not a single elected official, commissioner, or city staff member spoke. Not a single Los Angeles project was highlighted. The city’s in-progress “Missing Middle L.A.” program got nary a word. At best, Los Angeles was the void against which the stars shined: Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Culver City. The nation’s second-largest city thus fades into irrelevance, at least as far as housing development is concerned. 

Shoupiest Idea: Parking reformers and infill developers are kindred spirits. From the university and school that brought us the late Donald Shoup comes a new approach to parking: parking impact fees. Devised by UCLA Prof. Adam Millard-Bell, it encourages cities to stop messing around with imperfect and sometimes arbitrary parking minimums and maximums and instead simply make developers pay impact fees for each parking space. Millard-Bell suggests that the fee could be revenue- and-expense neutral if it replaces transportation impact fees. Developers would thereby be discouraged from providing excessive parking but still allowed to provide it as needed. 

Biggest Dud: Several of the biggest names in the YIMBY movement, including Brian Hanlon, declared Senate Bill 9, which facilitates lot splits and development of duplexes, to be essentially dead in the water. That’s a surprise, since legislators fought hard for it, and many supporters declared that the Age of the Duplex, and even the double-duplex, was upon us. But, it’s proving hard to use, and neighbors in single-family areas hate it. Brian Hanlon admitted, “we knew SB 9 wouldn’t do anything. We fought like hell (to pass it) so the NIMBYs wouldn’t win.” Housing is a blood sport. 

Hanlon basically said that homeowners should build ADUs and call it a day. The other big dud is SB 35, mainly because, speakers claimed, its union requirements do not pencil out for mid-rise buildings. 

But, the infill crowd is bullish on the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (updated in 2024 via AB 130 and SB 1123), which streamlines permitting for developments up to 10 units -- prime missing middle. 

Wish List: Having gotten much of what they wanted, the infill developers still have a wish list for the next governor. Needless to say, they want construction defect reform so that development of condos -- the quintessential form of infill housing -- can resume. They want to reduce transfer taxes and impact fees, especially on ADU’s. The theory goes: if you want more of something, you shouldn’t charge for it. 

My optimistic read on these wishes -- were Gov. Becerra or Gov. Hilton -- is that hope is not lost. Every developer understands that the state’s economic conditions, particularly the cost of labor and materials, will continue to be challenging. But, with some legislative relief, some of them may see enough daylight in their pro formas to break ground. Indeed, for many infill developers, building and, particularly, city-building, is a labor of love. They want to build, and breaking even might just be enough. 

Aesthetics: Were the infill revolution to really gain momentum, my biggest concern centers on something the summit did not discuss: aesthetics. Much of the infill housing that has been developed since at least the Great Recession has been, if not ugly, then, at least, not enlightened. They are designed for economy rather than beauty or placemaking. That usually translates to hulking six-story lumps that occupy half a city block. There are a million ways to achieve the same densities with more inventive design -- or, indeed, less inventive design. Developers can look to Europe and call it a day. My fear is that we’ll get an explosion of these buildings and squander the chance to create more pleasant, liveable streetscapes while, at the same time, giving opponents even more ammunition. (I’m optimistic about single-stair reform, which will give architects much more leeway, especially in smaller buildings.)

Let’s face it: no place in California -- not even Santa Monica, which has a new pro-development city manager and a slew of proposed projects, or Beverly Hills, which can somehow support $10 billion ultraluxury projects but barely a unit of affordable housing -- is going to turn into Manhattan any time soon. At least we can comfort ourselves with some Builder’s Remedies in the meantime.